There are some situations that I see, where there could be a breach of oath by the Government to serve the people's, best interest.

Withdraw benefit payments causing people financial distress

Medical assessments, classifying people fit for work, causing the person harm or death

Possible Brexit problem, where we stay in the EU, even with a deal

Austerity (causing harm to the people), the banker's debt is not our debt, there is no proof you, Joe Blogs, or me, owe any debt caused by the banks.

REASONINGI am assuming the Government have to take an oath to the constitution, or similar.As we the people give them their authority to serve us, a breach of oath mean that they are not serving us, thus they cannot hold authority over us, as they have abolished their authority over us?

Does this make any sense, and is it worth discussion?

Please move to appropriate place, if this is in the wrong place, thanks

Well what the hell does that mean? It can mean 10,001 things to 10,001 people.

contrast that policy statement with this one.

"During the next term of government we are going to make the following changes to the welfare system (for individuals)

We will raise the dole to 100% of the poverty line with 100% annual inflation indexation.We will exclude people with x% of disability from having to look for work if they elect not to and they will be paid 100% of the dole rate adjusted for 100% inflation each year."

I'm sure you can now see why elections are never about policy and the important things in life. The US is an outstanding example of this. Just take an interest in their next presidential election.

The Queen abdicated when she signed the C.M-AGREEMENTin the '70sWhich means persons are under corporate law/ILLEGITIMATE legislation.I wonder why she did not see fit to wear her CROWN to open parliament this year ..hmm.ps.the windbags swear their oath to qe2

Oaths of allegiance to the Crown are fairly common in British public life and are similar to those in other countries where a declaration of loyalty is made to the state.

Members of both Houses of Parliament are required by law to take an oath of allegiance to the Crown on taking their seat in Parliament.

So, they take an oath of alliegence to the CROWN which is a private company, Crown Corporation.

Until the oath or affirmation is taken, an MP may not receive a salary, take their seat, speak in debates or vote. They could also be fined £500 and – more important – have their seat declared vacant “as if they were dead” if they attempt to do so.

They have to act as a PERSON which is a legal fiction, not the human being.

The wording of the oath is prescribed by the Promissory Oaths Act 1868. The form and manner of administering the oath are set out in the Oaths Act 1978.

An MP takes the oath by holding the sacred text in his or her uplifted hand and says the words of the oath.English wording

I (name of Member) swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.

Note the contradiction here, are they swearing alligience to the crown or the queen?

There are some situations that I see, where there could be a breach of oath by the Government to serve the people's, best interest.

Withdraw benefit payments causing people financial distress

Medical assessments, classifying people fit for work, causing the person harm or death

Possible Brexit problem, where we stay in the EU, even with a deal

Austerity (causing harm to the people), the banker's debt is not our debt, there is no proof you, Joe Blogs, or me, owe any debt caused by the banks.

REASONINGI am assuming the Government have to take an oath to the constitution, or similar.As we the people give them their authority to serve us, a breach of oath mean that they are not serving us, thus they cannot hold authority over us, as they have abolished their authority over us?

Does this make any sense, and is it worth discussion?

Please move to appropriate place, if this is in the wrong place, thanks

Withdraw benefit payments? who actually withdraws them, it is the DWP who withdraws them and not the queen or the crown, the private company called the DWP.

Medical assessments? who undertakes them, it is the private company called the DWP who employs sub contractors to undertake the assessments and they act only on the findings.

Brexit? this would be a constitutional problem and an interesting case of mass fraud on the population.

While I agree with your sentiments I also have to ask a few questions, the legal fiction (uncivil servants) are swearing an oath to whom! the crown which is a private company or the queen who is there under false pretences, and note the amount of private companies there are acting as gate keepers.

As I understand things there are two versions of 'The Crown." One being the people or organisations associated with the banks, city of Westminster etc.

The other "The Crown" is the body of law, the rule of law. As I understand it, the ceremonial placement of the crown upon the head of the king or queen during a coronation ceremony, signifies that the king or queen is subject to that body of law and by extension, is required to uphold that body of law, i.e the rule of law.

Hi assassin , I was surprised by the wording of that oath .No mention of the crown. Just the head parasite.

So its very clear ,all the promises made to those still gullible enough to vote ,are immediately cast asideas that oath is the first thing they undertake as an MP. This is the reason why there are no republicanMPs. Or none that could take their seat anyway.

The United Kingdom is a parliamentary democracy: government is voted into power by the people, to act in the interests of the people. Every adult has the right to vote - known as 'universal suffrage'.

Alongside this system, the UK is also a constitutional monarchy. This is a situation where there is an established monarch (currently Queen Elizabeth II), who remains politically impartial and with limited powers.

Hi Dave, surprised you missed that one as you are always on the ball with these things, but hey we all have an off day.

Virum, merely a play on words and nothing more, it is designed to deceive and nothing more and if you find out who sits behind the speakers chair it will shed more light, particularly when you see who he represents, a little bit more research for you to do.

What happens once a week with the prime minister? she has an audience with the queen and answers directly to her, so we have a population with little or no choice when it comes to elections as it is blue or red, then either blue or red then answers directly to the queen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Remembrancer[/mention] wrote:The City of London is the only part of Britain over which parliament has no authority. In one respect at least the Corporation acts as the superior body: it imposes on the House of Commons a figure called the remembrancer: an official lobbyist who sits behind the Speaker’s chair and ensures that, whatever our elected representatives might think, the City’s rights and privileges are protected.